Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Munawar Hussain and others vs State1999 MLD 3022 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
• Munawar alias Shabboo vs The State1999 MLD 76 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-19Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali. Sherazi vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others1999 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court
  Exit Control Listright to travelfundamental rightspublic interestright of reviewnon-communication of reasonsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired professor, challenged the placement of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) by the Federal Government, which prevented him from traveling abroad to visit his ailing daughter. Respondents justified the action on the grounds that the petitioner, as a former administrator of a housing society, was allegedly responsible for huge financial losses currently under inquiry, and claimed the restriction was in the public interest. The Lahore High Court examined the provisions of the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, and held that although section 2(2) excludes the right of prior hearing, and section 2(3) permits withholding reasons in the public interest, the Federal Government is implicitly obligated to communicate the reasons for placing a person on the ECL as soon as the action is taken. The court ruled that non-communication of reasons renders the statutory right of review under section 3 nugatory and violates fundamental rights of liberty and free movement. Consequently, the court declared the placement of the petitioner's name on the ECL illegal and without lawful authority, while clarifying that fresh action in accordance with law is not barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of prior hearing under the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, absolve the Federal Government from communicating reasons after placing a person on the Exit Control List?
  • Is the Federal Government obligated to disclose the grounds for placing a person on the Exit Control List to enable the exercise of the statutory right of review?
  • Does the failure to communicate reasons for placing a citizen's name on the Exit Control List render the action illegal and without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Mun Awar Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-10Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain vs Mst. Zaibun Nisa And Another1999 CLC 594 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-23Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 1898 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mumt Az Hussain vs Faizullah and 5 others1999 YLR 981 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mulazim Hussain, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Waris Khan,1999 PLD Lahore 39 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09
  first information reportsecond FIRcounter versionpolice encounterintra court appealwrit petitionstatutory dutyregistration of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged an order of the learned Single Judge directing the S.H.O. of Police Station Waris Khan to record the statement of the writ petitioner under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and register a criminal case regarding a police-involved shooting incident during a political protest. The core legal question was whether a second First Information Report can be registered for the same occurrence when a prior F.I.R. has already been lodged by the police reflecting a one-sided version of facts. The Lahore High Court held that in circumstances involving allegations against public functionaries where the initial police report presents a distorted or one-sided version favourable to authorities, the rule against multiple F.I.Rs. yields to a counter-version, and the victim's complaint disclosing true facts must be entertained and registered accordingly. The court laid down the principle that a complaint by citizens against illegal state violence and actions of government functionaries cannot be treated as an ordinary complaint, and the police cannot refuse to register a case to shield authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second First Information Report be registered for the same occurrence when it presents a counter-version against public functionaries?
  • Whether the police are under a legal obligation to entertain a citizen's complaint regarding police violence under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is refusal by the police to register a case reflecting mala fide to protect authorities permissible under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mulazim Hussain And Another vs Maulana Abdul JalilK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 183 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmed alias Mokha and another vs The State1999 MLD 1542 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 426 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 463 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad and 3 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-19
  post-arrest bailcompromisenon-compoundable offencesunnatural offencesodomyjudicial noticeinterest of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from a case registered under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, where the petitioners sought post-arrest bail on the ground of an out-of-court compromise. The core legal question was whether a compromise between the parties could be considered as a valid ground for granting bail in offences that are statutory non-compoundable under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that although the offences under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 are not compoundable, the court can take judicial notice of a voluntary compromise in the interest of justice and equity. The Court reasoned that if the complainant party is unwilling to prosecute, the court should not compel them. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, establishing the principle that a compromise can serve as a mitigating factor for bail even in non-compoundable offences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court take judicial notice of an out-of-court compromise as a ground for granting bail in non-compoundable offences?
  • Are offences under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 compoundable under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a court compel the prosecution of a matter if the complainant party has voluntarily entered into an outside-court settlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad alias Mokha and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1905 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhummad Anwar vs (Dr.) Ghulam Murtaza Civil Hopital Bhai PheruK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 318 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Mrs. Arshad Begum And 2 Other1999 CLC 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-29
  specific performanceimpleadmentnecessary partyproper partymultifariousnesscivil revisionagreement to sell
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenges an order passed by a Civil Judge allowing a third party (respondent No. 3) to be impleaded in a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner against the property owner (respondent No. 1). The core legal question is whether a third party, who claims an independent agreement of sale with the plaintiff (rather than the defendant-owner), is a necessary or proper party to the original suit under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the third party is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It reasoned that the questions involved in a suit must be between the plaintiff and the defendant; disputes between a plaintiff and a third party constitute a separate cause of action. The Court established the principle that impleadment under Order I, Rule 10 is restricted to persons whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the questions between the existing plaintiff and defendant. Allowing such impleadment would cause unnecessary multifariousness, as the third party can independently pursue their own separate suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is a third party who claims an agreement of sale with the plaintiff a necessary or proper party in a suit for specific performance between the plaintiff and the original owner?
  • Does the term 'questions involved in the suit' under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend to disputes between a plaintiff and a third party?
  • Can a person who holds an agreement of sale but has not yet obtained a registered sale-deed convey a valid interest in the property to a third party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman Khan vs District Magistrate, Bhakkar and anothers1999 MLD 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yunus vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Member (Judiciali), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1999 MLD 2727 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1999 MLD 698 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Muhammad Ramzan and 6 others1999 P Cr. L J 968 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-16
  superdaricustody of vehicleseizure of propertyCode of Criminal Procedurewrit petitionownership dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the custody (Superdari) of a disputed tractor was handed over to respondent No. 1. The core legal question revolves around the proper custody and Superdari of a vehicle seized under section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where rival claims of ownership are raised and no criminal case has been registered. The Lahore High Court held that since no offence appears to have been committed or reported regarding the tractor and the ingredients of section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are lacking, the vehicle must be returned to the person from whom it was seized, consistent with established legal principles. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the impugned order granting Superdari to respondent No. 1.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the custody of a vehicle seized under section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be granted on Superdari when no criminal case has been registered?
  • To whom should property seized by the police be returned when the ingredients of section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are lacking?
  • Does the failure to report the seizure of property to the Area Magistrate under section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the return of the property to the person from whom it was taken?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Allah Yar Khan And 2 Other1999 CLC 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs and 6 others vs Moor Din and 261999 YLR 2720 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Ahmed Saeed and others1999 MLD 3354 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf And 3 Others vs Mst. Zohran Bibi1999 CLC 1365 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younispatwari and anothers vs Inspectorgeneral of Police and 3 others1999 MLD 2276 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis vs Muhammad Khan and 3 others1999 YLR 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis vs Atta Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 82 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 702 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas Patwari And Another vs I.G. Police, Punjab, LahoreK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 232 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas and others vs I.G. Police and others1999 P Cr. L J 163D · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-30
  transfer of investigationre-investigationcriminal investigationchallanconstitutional petitionpolice rulesmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a murder case registered under Section 302/34/109, P.P.C. at Police Station Changa Manga, District Kasur, wherein the investigation was repeatedly and arbitrarily transferred multiple times among various police officers and teams at the behest of influential persons. The core legal question concerned the legality of such frequent, casual transfers of investigation and whether investigation could continue after the submission of the final challan in court. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that transferring investigations mechanically and without recording reasons in writing or assessing the shortcomings of previous investigating officers is illegal and against settled principles. The Court ruled that once a complete challan is submitted in court, subsequent investigation becomes uncalled for and retards justice. The key principles laid down are that authorities must record written reasons highlighting specific lapses before transferring any investigation, and that the practice of arbitrary reinvestigation merely to please influential persons must be strictly curbed in accordance with binding precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an investigation in a criminal case can be transferred repeatedly without recording reasons in writing?
  • Is further investigation permissible under the law after the submission of a complete challan in court?
  • Does the frequent transfer of investigation at the instance of influential persons vitiate the criminal justice process?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The State1999 MLD 878 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The Additional Secretary, Ministry of ReligiousK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 394 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs Additional Secretary1999 MLD 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Khan vs (Mst.) Sahib Khatoon And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 149 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 5 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman alias Chan Mahi vs The State1999 MLD 671 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs (Mst.) Sardar Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 146 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail Tarar vs Government of Punjab And Other1999 CLC 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-09
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionrecovery of moneyadmitted liabilityalternative remedypaucity of funds
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed seeking a direction for the payment of an outstanding sum of Rs. 2,19,066 owed to the petitioner for work performed between 1992 and 1997. The respondents admitted the liability but cited a paucity of funds as the reason for non-payment and raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy through a civil suit. The core legal question was whether the State could withhold payment for admitted liabilities due to a lack of funds and whether a writ petition was maintainable when an alternative civil remedy existed. The Court held that the non-availability of funds provides no legal justification for the State to withhold payment for work performed by a citizen. Furthermore, the Court rejected the preliminary objection, noting that since the liability was admitted and the factual controversy was absent, the alternative remedy argument was mala fide. The Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to clear the outstanding amount within one month and restraining them from making other payments, excluding salaries, until the petitioner's claim was satisfied.

  Questions settled

  • Can the State withhold payment for work performed by a citizen on the ground of paucity of funds?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the recovery of money when the liability is admitted by the State?
  • Does the availability of a civil suit as an alternative remedy bar the maintainability of a writ petition where no factual controversy exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and 3 others vs Muhammad Aslam Khan and another1999 YLR 934 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-05
  civil revisiondeclarationregistered sale deedfraudpardanashin ladiesburden of proofexclusion of oral evidencepower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition before the Lahore High Court arose out of concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts dismissing the petitioners' suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The petitioners had executed an agreement to sell, a registered sale-deed, and a registered power of attorney regarding agricultural land, which explicitly included an 'Ihata' (residential compound). They challenged the inclusion of the Ihata on grounds of fraud and contended that the female petitioners were pardanashin ladies who did not understand the sale-deed's contents. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that fraud must be specifically pleaded and established by cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The female executants failed to appear in court to testify on oath, and the execution before the Sub-Registrar was admitted. The Court held that once a transaction is reduced to writing and duly registered, its terms are binding under Article 103 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, preventing parties from contradicting or detracting from its written terms via extrinsic oral assertions.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required to establish an allegation of fraud in a civil suit challenging a registered instrument?
  • Can a party that admits executing a registered document contradict its written recitals by leading extrinsic oral evidence under Article 103 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a mere allegation that a pardanashin lady did not understand the contents of a registered deed sufficient to vitiate it when she does not appear to testify on oath in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tayyab Hussain and another vs The State1999 YLR 1737 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 550 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Pirzada vs Govt, of Pakistan through SecretaryK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 330 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Pirzada vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And 3 Other1999 CLC 583 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Jamil and another vs Mahmood Maqbool Bajwa, Additional_District Judge, Lahore and 3 others1999 YLR 1447 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1218 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 561 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Saeed Qureshi vs The State1999 MLD 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail Nawaz Khan vs The ,State1999 YLR 2153 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Abdul Wakeel, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 86 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Muhammad IlyasK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 159 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher Alias Malang vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 164 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 340 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah, Civil Judge 1ST1999 YLR 1704 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Secretary, Local Government Andrural1999 CLC 1515 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 565 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Muhammad Ashiq and others1999 MLD 676 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases l2 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel Ahmed vs The State1999 YLR 1368 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-28
  post-arrest bailroad accidentrash and negligent drivingbail cancellationdiyatbailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Shakeel Ahmed, who was charged under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following a fatal road accident. The petitioner's initial bail, granted by a Magistrate, had been cancelled by an Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, considering the nature of the offence, the investigation findings, and the complainant's subsequent non-opposition. The Court observed that the offence, involving a licensed driver in a road accident, prima facie fell under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than Section 322. Noting that the complainant no longer opposed the bail due to a compromise with the petitioner's family, and considering the petitioner's status as a student, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the nature of the offence in a road accident case is arguably bailable under Section 320, and the complainant does not oppose the release, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a road accident involving a licensed driver prima facie fall under Section 320 or Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can bail be granted in a fatal accident case where the complainant does not oppose the application?
  • Is an offence under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered bailable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1530 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Din and another vs The State1999 MLD 966 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 607 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 615 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Shahid Nadeem And 5 Other1999 CLC 1273 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28
  ejectmentpersonal requirementbona fidelandlord and tenantadditional evidencesubsequent eventsrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenges an ejectment order granted against the appellant on the ground of the landlord's personal requirement. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant sought to introduce additional evidence showing the landlord had vacated and relet other shops, arguing this undermined the bona fide nature of the personal requirement. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlord has the prerogative to choose which premises to occupy and that subsequent events should not defeat a claim once established. The High Court, however, held that the landlord must maintain honesty of purpose throughout the proceedings. It determined that when a landlord gains possession of other properties during litigation, they must demonstrate why those properties are unsuitable for their needs. The landlord's repeated denial of the vacation of these shops demonstrated a lack of good faith. The Court held that appellate courts can consider subsequent events that have a direct nexus to the case's outcome. Consequently, the Court set aside the ejectment orders, finding the landlord's claim lacked bona fide requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court take into account subsequent events that have a direct nexus to the outcome of a rent case?
  • Does a landlord's acquisition of other properties during the pendency of an ejectment petition affect the bona fide nature of their personal requirement?
  • Is a landlord required to prove that other properties coming into their possession during litigation are unsuitable for their needs to maintain a claim for personal requirement?
  • Does the landlord's conduct and honesty throughout the litigation process impact the determination of bona fide requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Muhammad Safdar and 4 others1999 MLD 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and others vs Falak Sher and others1999 MLD 458 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And Another vs Rulia, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and 3 others vs Station House Officer, Uggoki, Tehsil1999 P Cr. L J 1345 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-03
  quashment of FIRwrit petitionconstitutional jurisdictioncriminal investigationdisputed questions of factconsolidation proceedingsrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed seeking the quashment of F.I.R. registered under sections 379 and 440 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, stemming from a dispute over land possession and crop harvesting during consolidation proceedings. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings and an ongoing police investigation could be quashed by the High Court based on disputed factual assertions regarding land possession and revenue records. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that factual controversies such as land ownership, possession, and the veracity of revenue entries cannot be resolved within writ jurisdiction. The Court established the principle that criminal investigations should not be stifled or halted during their infancy, and disputed factual questions must be left for determination by the investigating agency and the trial court in due course.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding land possession and revenue records be resolved in writ jurisdiction to quash an FIR?
  • Whether criminal investigation into an FIR should be stifled or quashed during its infancy.
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for quashing a criminal case where the allegations require factual determination through investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabir vs The State1999 MLD 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State and 4 others1999 P Cr. L J 849 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs District Rahimyar Khan And Another1999 CLC 1578 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saqlain vs The State1999 MLD 994 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saqlain and 6 others vs Siraj Khan1999 YLR 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleemullah Khan vs National Construction Company1999 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Multan and others1999 P Cr. L J 332 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Abdul Sattar and 3 others1999 YLR 193 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Chotia, Advocate vs Zafar Iqbal Owasi, Advocate, Bahawalnagar and 4 others1999 PLD Lahore 446 · Lahore High Court
  constitutional petitionbar association electionappeal committeeinterim reliefquorumpakistan bar council
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner challenged an order passed by the Chairman of the Appeal Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council suspending the order of the Executive Committee of the Punjab Bar Council which had declared the petitioner elected as President of the Bar Association, Minchanabad. The core legal question was whether the Chairman of the Appeal Committee sitting singly was competent under the relevant rules to admit an appeal and grant interim relief without the participation or circulation among the other members of the Committee. The Lahore High Court held that under the Pakistan Bar Council Appeal Rules, 1986, an appeal and grant of interim relief must be dealt with by the Committee consisting of three to five members, and decisions must be taken by a majority view or through circulation among members, leaving no room for the Chairman acting alone. The Court laid down the principle that when the law prescribes a specific manner for a thing to be done, it must be done in that exact manner, and all other modes stand excluded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chairman of the Appeal Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council can sit singly to admit an appeal and grant interim relief?
  • What is the prescribed manner for the Appeal Committee to pass orders regarding the admission of an appeal and the grant of interim relief?
  • Does the unavailability of other members authorize the Chairman of the Appeal Committee to act alone in violation of the statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 872 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Akhtar Butt vs The Election Tribunal and 5 others1999 MLD 2793 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State and others1999 MLD 2549 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Saddar, Arifwala, Pakpattan and others1999 P Cr. L J 1786 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs S.H.O. Police Station, Naseerabad, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 88 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs S.H.0.1999 P Cr. L J 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Ashiq and 7 others1999 YLR 1227 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Judge, Family Court,Kabirwala and 4 others1999 YLR 830 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement1999 MLD 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Abdul Aziz1999 YLR 2043 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Other vs Mahnda And Other ,K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 459 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and 3 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabtain vs Government of the Punjab, Education1999 PLC (C.S.) 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabtain vs Government of Punjab Education DepartmentK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 183 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Malik And Another vs The Deputy Settlement1999 CLC 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rehan vs Director, Elementary Education (Schools), Gujranwala. Division, Gujranwala and 5 others1999 YLR 2106 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 128 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and 3 others1999 MLD 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad IqbalK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 173 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs District Judge, Vehari And 5 Other1999 CLC 2000 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and another vs Muhammad Sharif and others1999 YLR 39 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan alias Boota vs The State1999 PLD Lahore 221 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-20
  murderchance witnessmotivemedical evidencebenefit of doubtalibisubstitutioncapital sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the motive, whether the eyewitnesses were credible chance witnesses, and whether the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the triggering motive event, that the purported eyewitnesses were unconvincing chance witnesses whose presence at the scene was doubtful, and that the medical evidence contradicted the single-weapon theory of the prosecution, pointing instead to a blind crime where the accused was implicated merely on suspicion. The Court laid down the principle that the weakness of a defence plea of alibi does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that suspicion and chance testimony cannot sustain a capital conviction. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful can form the basis of a capital conviction?
  • Does the failure of an accused to prove a plea of alibi relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can divergent dimensions of firearm entry wounds on the victim's body negate the prosecution's claim that a single weapon was used by a single assailant?
  • What constitutes non-deliberate substitution or false implication based on suspicion in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →